Release: President Forever 2016 v. 1.3.4

President Forever 2016 v. 1.3.4 has been released. This fixes several bugs including one that occurred with the Endorsers Screen, adds all Senators for 2012 and 2016, updates Governors for 2016, modifies certain Governor attributes for 2012 and 2016, and modifies the 2016 start date.

Note: if you are a President Forever 2012 owner, you are eligible for this upgrade.

83 thoughts on “Release: President Forever 2016 v. 1.3.4”

Good version so far. If I could request Anthony, can you fix up election night so that it is more in depth (states called, lock graphic to show state has been won by a candidate, scroll bar etc.)? Thank you.

This game is coming along excellently! I know this is not a big concern, and you are fixing other bugs and adding other features to the game, but I suggest that you add Hurricane Sandy as an event in the game. It arguably had a significant impact on the election. I am not sure if you intend to add it, but it should affect the presidential candidates’ momentum in the campaign.

I agree with Zach. I think Obama was going to win the election anyway; however, I think the hurricane helped him beat Romney in the popular vote and may have increased is electoral numbers. Originally, I had Obama at 290 EVs and 49% of the pop vote.

I think Hurricane Sandy should slightly increase his momentum in all coastal states, but more so in the areas hit by the hurricane.

Building on what KM, I think it would be cool if election night was overhauled to be more of a production. The gameplay itself is very simplistic, and I think that’s a lot of the game’s appeal, but I think it would be cool to see the finished product presented in a more interesting way. Maybe make it more dramatic and drawn out for close races? Obviously it would take a little more thought than I’ve given it, but it’s just a thought.

Thanks for all the great updates! This should tide me over until the real thing starts up in a few years.

I think that endorsements from endorsers who are from other parties should give more momentum than your own. I mean, everyone knows that your own party supports you, but if the other party does too, that could have a bigger impact.

I noticed that the population figures used seem to be based on the 2000 election. Also, some of the primaries (in 2012 and their copies in 2016) don’t make sense: there are a couple (including Alabama) that are FPP with a cutoff, some that are PR with a 50% cutoff (Tennessee, I think), and some are FPP when they were really PR (like Nevada). Also, some primaries are PR with a 0% cutoff (as they were IRL), but this results in people who have dropped out getting delegates (not IRL). The last one can be solved with a 1% cutoff.

Thank you for this – this is an error with the server hosting the files, and has happened once before that I am aware of. I have contacted the company associated with it. I recommend trying again tomorrow.

Some of the politically neutral events like the Titanic sinking or Sandy hitting NJ/NY should just make it so any campaign event/ad you do adds less momentum or has less power for a fixed period of time (week or two usually). Scandals could also have less of a detriment to a candidate. Politicking during a disaster looks insensitive and will take a backseat to headline news. Also something like Sandy could decrease voter turnout across the board in the regions/states it affects.

I was playing as Gingrich, and just after I won the party’s nomination, I noticed that Romney was STILL campaigning against me, even though I won the nomination. How do you get rid of them? He was in the negatives still in withdrawing and withdraw/endorsing.

I notice that whenever you get the endorsement of a governor from another party, if you click on his/her state it still says that governor is campaigning for that party, +1 for their footsoldiers. If you get that endorsement they should probably add +1 (or even more) to your footsoldiers, rather than always go by party lines (also independent governors don’t give a footsoldier bonus to anyone I noticed).

Got it – noted. Now that the endorser aspect has been built up, I might simply remove this part of the game – Governors are now endorsers, when you get the endorsement you can get organizational infrastructure, and then they can also become a surrogate. The ‘Governor campaigning for us’ feature was developed before the game had this capability.

“I was playing as Gingrich, and just after I won the party’s nomination, I noticed that Romney was STILL campaigning against me, even though I won the nomination. How do you get rid of them? He was in the negatives still in withdrawing and withdraw/endorsing.”

Did he stay in for a long period of time after you had locked the nomination up?

Thanks for this – noted. In some primaries and caucuses, the rules in real life are more complex, so I made a decision about how to translate that into the game categories. If you have a specific one, and a link to a resource describing it as otherwise, I’ll look at it.

The Surrogates screen (the little flag) works fine. But the endorsers screen (the thumbs up) throws the following errors:
List index out of bounds (4)
Access violation at address 005CDCB4 in module ‘p4e16.exe’. Read of access 00000089.

Then a blue screen with no buttons (including no X) and only text for “Leader” “PIPs remaining” and the leaders’ names appears. Presumably, it’s the endorsers screen, but it didn’t load properly. I can escape with alt-f4.

Also, in my game, it’s currently August 20th (I’m Bobby Jindal, and I cleared 1144 delegates in late May) and Marco Rubio still refuses to leave the race. It’s just confirming Harry’s problem.

Same game. The Democrats had a 4-way brokered convention (all but Warren, who had dropped out earlier). When Warner and Cuomo withdrew, the message saying how their delegates were divided up said “O’Malley gets 0 delegates, Clinton gets 0 delegates.” So the final ballot had both O’Malley and Clinton with the same number of delegates as they had on the first.

I played as Bush in 2016, starting in the primaries. I won IA, NH, SC and FL–the first 4 primaries; however, I didn’t seem to gain much momentum. After these 4 victories, I was still #4 in the polls. I would think that many of the undecideds would start supporting me because I’d get so much more focus in the Media, etc. Also, I didn’t seem to get many supporters or funding. Despite fundraising, I ran out of money by March 3rd. I still managed to win about 4 more states, but lost to Chris Christie. I never emerged in the top 3.

Also, I”d like to see amount of delegates as they are earned, rather than the projected total. When I won the 4 states, it still made it seem like Christie, Rubio and Ryan were destroying me. In the 2012 election, in real life, they rarely showed the projected total, but rather, the current score.

I’d like to see more momentum gained by winning a primary, especially the big ones.

Just tried to play Bush in 2016. Four problems arose (bug-wise) that I can’t seem to allow me to progress after February (game shuts down for some reason. After 3 months in the primaries around Dec, the autosave stops working and the message “Unable to write a save file” or something like that arises. I tried to save in another file and it said the same thing, so I could not save, or reload a game at all. Later when I tried to load a game, the message “List index out of bounds (4)” came up.

2nd problem was one game, I could not access the electoral strategy screen. Same message came up, “List index out of bounds (4).”

3rd problem was as I was playing Bush and won Iowa, NH, SC, FL, and NV. When Minnesota and Colorado came up, I won Minnesota, but Rubio won Colorado. Then the whole map changed and now Rubio was in the lead. It just seemed odd that after 5 straight wins and Rubio surges to the lead. (I should mention Paul Ryan did drop out of the race at the point (did not endorse Rubio) and most support went his way. )

The last problem, I am not so sure is a bug. But, I have never had this problem. Around December in primaries, the autosave takes 2-4 mins to save. This seems very odd to me. I have a pretty good computer, and it should not take 2-4 min to save.

Since 2016 is so far away, nobody (obviously) is declared as a candidate for either party, and we have no real way of knowing what the mood in the country will be by then, maybe the candidates should be ranked more evenly as far as polling data goes. I get it that some seem like obvious front-runners, but it’s just too far away to know, when nobody even declares. For example, with the Democrats, you have 5 potential candidates, I’d have all the candidates open up with around 15% actual support (if you play all five), and leave about 25% undecided going into the primaries. Since you actually start the game well before the first caucus/primary, it still leaves time for candidates to open up good leads or fall apart with poor debates and campaigning.

Likewise, for the GOP hopefuls, since there is more, maybe start them all around 5%-10% if you play them all.

I know every race always has “front-runners,” “dark horses” and “also-rans,” but it’s too far out to know all that right now.

I think making it more balanced and competitive makes it easier to win with “second tier” candidates, and makes it harder to just run away with it if you use a “front-runner” type.

I don’t know if Rand Paul should even be a candidate for 2016. Although it’s early, a recent speculative poll in Iowa put him in second to last (ahead of only Sarah Palin) with 4% among Republicans. He was also the only candidate who had a below 50% favorability rating. I know it’s early and it’s only one state but many candidates decide whether they’re viable based on Iowa or New Hampshire polling.

More importantly, his Senate seat is up for election in 2016, and in Kentucky he can’t appear on the ballot for both President and Senator in November. I doubt he would risk losing both rather than waiting for 2020.

Yes, putting Rand Paul as a candidate is speculative, and may not be as likely as some of the other potential candidates. However, he fills a niche that his father has left, and my guess is that many libertarian-leaning types would want to attempt someone like Rand Paul in the primaries. We’ll see as things get clearer in the months ahead – he might be turned to off by default.

Do you have a way to make the old conventions operate more like the old conventions? With the balloting? For instance, if a candidate doesn’t get 2/3 of the vote even after candidates drop out at convention, then there is another ballot, and possibly a compromise choice. Just an idea, if it isn’t too complex do this.

Also, in the 1912 scenario, when no one reached a majority at the convention, La Follette’s delegates did not go to either Taft or Roosevelt. Should they choose an alternative candidate? It said that Taft and Roosevelt each gained 0 of La Follette’s delegates. He had 100+ delegates and would have decided the nominee.

When playing as Bush in 2016, the message saying that I had secured the nomination came up despite only having 1071 delegates at the time and only projected 1301 for a brokered convention with Christie. This has happened a couple of times before with previous updates.

To be accurate with the old elections, such as the 1912 scenario, I think you should not allow candidates to withdraw, as they rarely did withdraw. The votes they keep would act as their delegates at the convention. In the old elections, there were generally many names on the ballots, as I’m sure you know. I don’t think any of the 1912 candidates withdrew.

I ran a game with Rand Paul vs. Bobby Jindal in the GOP primary (I controlled both) and O’Malley vs. Warren in the Democrat primary (computer controlled).

On the Democrat side, O’Malley didn’t clinch the nomination until May, and Paul didn’t clinch until June.

O’Malley started off leading the race once the general election cycle began, but like the primary, it was only a very slight advantage, with most states in play. Paul ended up winning a landslide, but the final week still had quite a few states in toss-up status, and most states were decided within 7%, so it was closer than the final score would indicate.

This scenario was the most competitive I have managed to play yet, and no gliches.

I’ll try another scenario where I use more candidates. I just wanted to see how the #4 and #5 listed candidates for each party would play out.

@ DJP53916 – it seems Rand Paul lost a lot of support among the so-called Liberty crowd because of his endorsement of Romney. Also a number of his positions differ from his father’s – medicare, for example. Just because a politician is someone’s son doesn’t mean he’s a carbon copy. I think you might see the Ron Paul crowd get behind someone like Mitch Daniels or even Jeff Flake despite his flip-flops, or, to get really outside the box, Andrew Napolitano. It’s okay to have Rand Paul in the game, I’d just hate to think he’s taking up space that could be occupied by a more realistic candidate like Nikki Haley.

People have mentioned this before but some of the GOP primaries and caucuses in the game aren’t realistic. Maine was a non-binding caucus (generally reckoned to be proportional) not a winner take all primary. Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina (as well as other states) were not winner take all but rather winner take congressional district & 3 delegates, with some giving the remainder to the winner statewide, and others giving the remainder proportionally based on statewide results.

I also just noticed that once you enter general election mode, the number of times a surrogate has barnstormed an area doesn’t seem to reset like it does for candidates (getting the “barnstormed too many times in region” message). Maybe that’s by design but just thought I’d point it out.

I’m wondering if something could happen at the convention if everyone doesn’t drop out. Here is my reasoning, and this hasn’t happened anytime in recent history, but I am playing as Jeb Bush. Chris Christie locked up nomination in May, primarily because of endorsements by those who dropped out. Despite this, I have more than half the delegates Christie has (if you count only those he earned), more importantly, I have 5% higher popular vote than Christie. I would assume, something would happen at the convention that would cause a struggle if I maintain this. At the very least, I’d be assured the Vice-Presidency, if I can’t politic my way into getting the nomination despite not having the delegates. I am certain something would happen if a “losing” candidate has the highest poll numbers.

I’ll play out the scenario before I submit this comment:

June 2nd: 7% lead vs Christie (up 2% from when Christie locked up nomination)

June 5th: I win Christie’s home state of NJ & California, bringing me within 200 EVs of Christie, despite Christie having locked up the nomination in May.

June 18: 8% lead over Christie in the polls

Additionally, I win every state after NJ and CA. I understand the technicalities of the delegates; however, I think, in real life, if this every happened, there would probably be some wavering among people that had endorsed Christie, even the chance that he doesn’t get the nomination that he locks up. If not Bush, maybe a compromise choice.

June 26: 9% lead over Christie in the polls

July 16: 10% lead over Christie, I’ve won every state after Christie locked up the nomination. Not counting delegates gained by withdrawn candidates, Christie leads me by less than 100 delegates.

August 4: 11% lead over Christie

[Could I possibly run as a 3rd party when I lose the nomination?]

August 22nd: Bush is endorsed by Bobby Jindal (even though I think he endorsed Christie when he withdrew]

August 26: the last of the Republican endorse Jeb Bush this week; Christie is also hit with a pie; although, he may have just been eating it.

August 27: 12% lead over the “nominee” Christie

Convention: Christie has the majority of the votes. Christie is the nominee. Christie selects Thune as VP.

Although, it isn’t impossible that the convention would refuse to drop Christie, I think it is highly likely that the convention would not be normal. Is there a way to allow for compromise choices, the dropping of the nominee that “locks” up nomination, etc.

Public opinion by the citizens of his own party were totally turning against Christie at the end, and Bush ended up soaring when it was too late.

I’m playing as Christie, I was endorsed by Dem. Jerry Brown of California…
Yet in the General election, the California state screen, shows that “Gov. Jerry Brown is supporting DEM campaign +1 to their Footsoliders.”

Is it possible to correct that, 99% of the time it probably won’t matter… but when you make a concerted effort to win over a cross-party endorsement. It kinda rains on the parade.

“People have mentioned this before but some of the GOP primaries and caucuses in the game aren’t realistic. Maine was a non-binding caucus (generally reckoned to be proportional) not a winner take all primary. Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina (as well as other states) were not winner take all but rather winner take congressional district & 3 delegates, with some giving the remainder to the winner statewide, and others giving the remainder proportionally based on statewide results.”

The game has no current way to model non-binding caucuses. The same with elections by congressional district. That’s why they are done differently.

Thanks for these – some of those might be put in as Veep candidates soon. As for candidates being on or off by default, I’m planning for most of the new additions to be off by default. Otherwise, it makes for too crowded a field to start. As things become clearer for 2016, these settings will be modified.

The 2016 Senate election is an interesting point. However, he has expressed interest in running for President in 2016, and until another obvious inheritor of the Ron Paul mantle appears, I’ll keep him as a candidate.

Regarding the surrogates not resetting, I’m pretty sure that was a problem I had in one game, but I wasn’t able to duplicate it in another game and I haven’t had that problem since, so it’s probably no big deal.

Regarding primaries & caucuses, I understand totally how it could be difficult to add in Congressional districts for primaries, but I thought perhaps many states you could make sort of highly skewed proportional, with winners taking most of the delegates and losers taking a few in increments of 2 or 3 (depending on how that state did things), perhaps with a high cutoff like the number of votes divided by the number of active candidates.

Non-binding caucuses are hard to predict or model accurately, but it’s pretty reasonable to assume proportional allotment, so I’m glad you did that with Iowa. I just think it would be nice to also see that with Maine and other caucuses, rather than making them winner-take-all.

Actually I think I just figured out the surrogate reset glitch – if I create a surrogate before general election mode, have him barnstorm 5 times, and then create him/her again (before general election mode, still), then if I just keep them around without doing anything, that surrogate will reset when general election mode comes. However, if I create, barnstorm 5 times, then create again after general election mode starts, it doesn’t seem to reset. I’ll play through 1.3.5 and see if there’s any change to this!